JOHNNIE BEEN GOOD?
by Greg Palast
[Boston] The millionaires are dancing now. The balloons are falling on John Kerry, John Edwards and their nuclear families.
They're playing "Johnnie B. Goode" over the loudspeakers. Democrats are hopping up and down like JFK never went to Dallas; like Bill Clinton didn't blow it for us; like there's a chance to bring the boys home alive; like America can crawl out of Dick Cheney's bunker and look at the sun again.
But has Johnnie Kerry been good so far?
He told us tonight about some poor bastard in Ohio whose job evaporated when his company unbolted the equipment and sent it south. Hey, Johnnie, didn't you vote for NAFTA?
We applauded when he said the White House should stop treating teachers and school kids like fugitives from justice and help them out. But, Johnnie, didn't you vote for George Bush's "No Child's Behind Left" assault on public education?
Then there was that little story meant to show us all he is a Man for All Seasons, above party politics. "I broke with many in my own party," he said, "to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do." No, John, it wasn't. It was craven political cowardice, going with the anti-government hysteria that put a knife into the heart of the programs you cried over tonight.
He told us the sad story of the poor homeless guy huddled in front of the White House. Is this the same John Kerry that voted for Clinton's welfare "reform"? That put a five-year limit on food stamps, making child starvation the law of the USA. At least Ronald Reagan offered ketchup as a vegetable.
Kerry made good use of the cash he saved on feeding the poor. "I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street." Hey, thanks, John.
But my absolute favorite of the night was when Kerry told us, "Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence."
But, as Senator, you didn't. No questions asked: you just closed your eyes and voted for the lie. I know it, and you sure as hell know it.
And you mentioned a time or two tonight that you served your country. Got yourself a medal for it, too. I'm sorry, but shooting a Vietnamese teenager in the back who was defending his country doesn't make you a hero.
Yesterday, my buddy Michael Moore and I held a press conference in Boston. Some joker of a reporter asked Mr. Fahrenheit about Kerry's gung-ho keep'm-in-Baghdad position. Michael fudged and fidgeted. I felt bad for him as he faked the answer, "President Kerry would not have sent us to war." But as Senator, Kerry did.
I've got an easier job than Michael: as a journalist I don't have to defend any candidate. Nevertheless, I know that my Democratic Party friends will want to ship me to Guantanamo for asking, "You believe in Kerry, but does he believe in you?"
Remember, comrades, I'm only asking questions, here. I'm sorry if the answers make you uncomfortable about your favorite rich guy.
I know what you're going to say. "Isn't Bush worse?"
By a long shot. But asking if Kerry is as bad as Bush is like asking if a slap in the face is as painful as a brick to the skull.
But don't you get tired of being slapped around by privileged politicos on hypocrisy hyper-drive -- then having to applaud? It can't be pleasant, no matter how many pretty balloons they drop on your head.
www.gregpalast.com
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Joker's Wild: George Bush's House of Cards regime change deck.
Some people have"beauty without talent".
Ryan has "a talent for beauty".
I’m staying in the race. Here’s why. Get used to it.
By Ralph Nader
Washington, DC is corporate-controlled territory. You can see it in Congress, the regulatory agencies, the Departments, the presidency – corporations rule the nation.
The power of corporate influence affects every aspect of our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy, pushing the United States into wars in countries with resources the corporate engine needs and into trade agreements that weaken U.S. sovereignty and undermine environmental, labor, and consumer rights.
The mass concentrations of power, privilege, wealth, technology, and immunity have placed their rampaging global quest for maximum profits in the way of progress, justice, and opportunity for the very millions of workers who made possible these corporate profits but who are falling behind, excluded, and expendable.
Their labors have gone unrequited as these unpatriotic corporations abandon our country and shift industries abroad, along with what is left of their allegiance to our country and community.
As a result, jobs are being shipped overseas to China, where a despotic regime forbids trade unions from negotiating fair wages. This loss of jobs leads to a downward spiral in wages in the United States, where today one out of four full-time workers is now paid less than $8.75 an hour – less than an individual, and certainly a family, canlive on. Lobbyists from Wal-Mart and McDonalds ensure that living wage legislation goes nowhere in Congress.
Corporatism has turned federal and state departments and agencies into indentured servants for taxpayer-funded subsidies and budget-busting lucrative contracts. Middle-level and top-level corporate executives become mid-level and top-level government regulators and then return to their corporations. The superficially regulated become the regulators and then become the regulated again.
Through their revolving-door officials, thousands of Political Action Committees, donations from executives, day-to-day lobbying by trade associations, company lobbies, and corporate law firms, corporations dominate the actions of government.
There has been a resistant corporate crime wave that has looted and drained trillions of dollars from millions of workers, their pensions, and from small investors. Has the President supplied the required law enforcement resources for action? Scarcely. Has Congress investigated this massive crime wave and demanded action? Barely. As CNN’s Lou Dobbs reports regularly, very few of these bosses have been brought to justice and jail.
Corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for fifty years: once 30% of our income, they now stand at 7.4%, despite massive record profits.
President Harry Truman first proposed universal health care in 1955. We still don’t have it. Instead we have a wasteful health care system – where 25% of the costs are spent on redundant and unnecessary bureaucracy because it is built on inefficient profit-driven health insurance industry – and an increasingly bill-gouging network of HMO’s and hospitals. The United States spends far more on health care than any other country in the world but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of health care it provides, according to the World Health Organization.
The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care. More than 44.3 million Americans have no health insurance, and tens of millions more are underinsured. Each year, 18,000 people die in the U.S. because of lack of health care, according to the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine. Why doesn’t the government face up to this issue? Because the healthcare sellers and health insurance industries have donated to politicians to ensure the outcome.
A recent highlight of corporate influence over government was the prescription drug bill. The bill was a big profit maker for the drug companies. They invested $150 million in lobbying the government and in return got a $400 billion drug bill.
Once again, the corporations win – the people lose. In a few years investigative journalists will report how many people died because they could not afford life-saving medicine.
The U.S. military-industrial complex continues to build for Soviet-era enemies that no longer exist. The defense budget, which now accounts for half of the operating spending of the federal government, is driven by weapons procurement for million dollar missiles, expensive airplanes costing tens of millions each, and atomic submarines costing much more.
How are these decisions made? The weapons industry comes forward with plans and ideas and then coordinates a lobbying campaign on Congress.
Presently, global corporations are bent on strategically planning our politics, economy, military expenditures, education, environment, culture, even our genetic inheritance. Is it not our responsibility together to shape our own futures within our own deliberative democratic process?
The Nader-Camejo Campaign believes we have a moral imperative to take a stand, help rescue our besieged democracy, and secure our country and its liberties. We are running to restore the sovereignty explicit in the preamble to our Constitution — “we the people,” not for sale, which can displace the “everything for sale” corporate controls.
The condition of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is that the people must rule, not as a manipulated mirage, but as an authentic coming together of a strong citizenry — from the neighborhoods to the national capital — to end the chronic material and spiritual deprivations that our people should no longer have to suffer.
Politics should return to its original meaning – of the citizens – not of the corporate fundraisers.
Ralph Nader is an Independent Candidate for President and author of the new book, “The Good Fight – Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap.”
Dennis Kucinich Addresses the Democratic National Convention
Wed, July 28, 2004
We, Democrats, in convention united. We who built this country with the sweat of our brow, we, the steelworkers, autoworkers, the miners, the aircraft workers, communication workers, the laborers, the people who teach the children, who farm the land, who drive the trucks, who clean the streets; we who hunger for justice, who nurse the sick, who represent the oppressed, who serve the meals, who stand at check out counters, who build the bridges, who sleep under the bridges, who hunger for food; we, who put out the fires, who police the streets; who protect this nation and the freedoms we celebrate tonight: the soldiers, the sailors, marines and air force.
We Democrats assemble united for John Kerry, united to recreate our nation with the power of the ballot, to transform it with the power of the human heart and the power of the human spirit.
Out of many, we Democrats are one. We are left, right, center. We are one. We are black, white, red, brown, yellow. We are one. One for jobs and health care for all. One for peace and fair trade. One for our children's future.
And we are One for John Kerry. We will carry America for Kerry and Kerry will carry America for us.
We remember who we are. We are the party of the people.
We are the party of FDR and the New Deal. The party of JFK and the New Frontier. Of Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society; of Martin Luther King's Dream, of Robert Kennedy's striving spirit; of Caesar Chavez's ‘si se puede!' Of Eleanore Roosevelt and human rights. Infused with the passion of Paul Wellstone from Minnesota, the humanity of Jimmy Carter from Plains, the engaging brilliance of Bill Clinton from Hope, and we are the party of John Kerry, the next great Democratic President of the United States. The history of social and economic progress in America was written by the Democratic party.
Democrats are the party of the minimum wage. The forty hour week. Time and a half for overtime. We are the party of the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike, the right to a safe workplace, the right to a secure retirement. We are the party of workers' rights, civil rights, and women's rights.
We are the party of national health care for senior citizens, of social security, public education and rural electrification.
When we show up holding the banner of social and economic justice, we win. And now must create a new America. In our National Anthem, when Francis Scott Key asked "does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" He connected freedom and bravery, democracy and courage.
Courage America! Courage to replace an administration which has usurped our constitution and attacked our Bill of Rights.
Courage to reject doctrines which separate us from the world. Courage to rejoin the world to ban all nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, land mines and small arms. Courage to join the International Criminal Court, to sign the Kyoto Climate change treaty. Courage America .
Courage to take principles of nonviolence and make them part of the everyday life of our nation and work with the nations of the world to put an end to war.
Courage, America, to create a nation where our government achieves legitimacy not from the money it spends on armaments, but from the resources it channels into education, health care, job creation, housing, environmental protection and new sustainable energy policies.
Courage to give John Kerry the chance to restart the 21st century.
Courage America. Courage to shake off the administration's propaganda, the fear: the threats, the deceptions, the color-coded threat systems and the misnamed and ill-conceived Patriot Act. Courage America. This administration led us into a war based on distortions and misrepresentations and we must hold them accountable.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or with al Queda's role in 911. There was no "gathering threat". There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq .
I was mayor of Cleveland, and I tell you have seen weapons of mass destruction - - in our cities. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction, homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction, racism is a weapon of mass destruction, fear is a weapon of mass destruction.
We must disarm these weapons and we must turn the military budget into books, schools, teachers, housing, health care, job creation and stronger neighborhoods.
It's been said: "Once we walk there will be a path." So let us blaze a new path with John Kerry and John Edwards.
This convention will lead us toward the victory not just of a party, but the victory of the American people over fear, a victory of hope over despair, of faith over cynicism; a victory for health care, for civil liberties, for workers' rights, for human rights, for the environment, for peace. Courage America. Courage America. John Kerry America.
Over a few months, with a couple of e-mails, I wrote to Noam Chomsky about a handful of current issues facing the globe, and our daily lives. Here is what has developed.
2/16/04
SI: I was wondering what your take on the Democratic election has been so far,
and what you thought of Dennis Kucinich, regardless of chance to get elected.
NC: If we had a functioning democratic culture, and elections weren't basically bought, I think Kucinich would be far and away the best candidate. But as things now stand, it'll be two people born to great wealth and political influence who were in the same secret society at Yale, and have plenty of corporate support -- and the one with more will probably win, as usual.
SI: Would you recommend Nader run again? Should the green party keep strong
and make the democratic party fight for their votes?
NC: No, I wouldn't recommend that Nader run under current circumstances. Getting rid of the Bush crowd is very important, I think. They can do enormous damage with another mandate.
About Green tactics, I don't know; arguments can be given both ways.
SI: If Kerry wins, do you see much change occurring in the policies of our gov't in his four years or will it be a tamer corporate run white house?
NC: I doubt that a Kerry administration would be much different, but it would be somewhat different, if only because the parties have somewhat different constituencies, and have to be partially responsive to them. In a system of enormous power, small differences can translate into very large effects.
7/28/04
SI: From what you've seen of John Kerry's policies and promises, how do you expect the conflict between Israel, the US, & Palestine to develop if Kerry is elected? I ask this after reading that Palestine was considering going to the Security Council after the elections in regards to removing the "barrier." It seems hopeful to expect a change of relations with Israel when Kerry has indicated nothing of the sort.
NC: Kerry's policies on Israel, at least as stated, are about the same as Bush's. And the truth is that Clinton's weren't that much different, apart from the last few months when he was a lame duck president.
Palestinians can't go to the Security Council because the US will veto anything.
In fact, a large majority of the population supports the international consensus on a political settlement that the US has blocked for 30 years, but coverage is so distorted and meager that very few even know of the US role, and commentators (like Nicholas Kristof recently) can even talk of the US as having been an "honest broker" until Bush #2, which is outlandish considering the uncontroversial facts.
SI: Where do you stand on direct action in regards to environmental conservation? Currently there is a woman suspending herself in the forest to stop logging. Although this action is a nonviolent one, there are always more drastic monkey wrenching actions which occur too. I was wondering what your thoughts on this were.
NC: I don't think one can say anything general about direct action, which is after all a tactic, not a principle. Choice of tactics is a very serious matter. They have to be evaluated in terms of likely effects -- on public opinion, on policymakers, etc. Those on the scene are in the best position to judge.
SI: What are your thoughts on Sudan, and the actions or lack of actions occurring there. There seems to be a severe reluctance towards using the word "genocide" in this country but many indicators point to such a description. Does the word matter and what can be done which isn't?
NC: There are undoubtedly major atrocities going on in Sudan, and every effort should be made to bring them to an end, even though they are nowhere near as awful as what has been happening in the Eastern Congo and elsewhere. There are also far worse atrocities that we could easily bring to an end, without military intervention, sanctions, or in fact anything beyond spending pennies a day to bribe drug companies to produce drugs for the 8000 children who die every day of easily preventable diseases in southern Africa -- that's Rwanda-level killing every day, not just for 100 days as in Rwanda. But since there would be a slight cost to us, the
matter is not raised.
The term "genocide" has been so cheapened in recent years that it is hard
to decide whether it should be used at all. It's become more of a term of abuse and a political slogan than a meaningful description.
For more information about Noam Chomsky go to his website
John Kerry, Democratic millionaire, prepared himself to encounter an unfamiliar species today as he was to meet with the lower class.
jesus burger - our lord jesus burger
all over the globe people prefer the lord's burger
terms of embarassment
help yourself
in the beginning humans knew love for one another... slowly they became greedy monsters... eventually murdering all of their unborn children
level one: destroy capitalism. level two: enjoy freedom
why yes walley, republicans are nazis
a zombie porno
jesus burger - nanobot invasion and smiles from heavy watchers june 2003
the gates of heaven are closed red
jesus is the machine / us rebels are inside
my baby the nanobot
she said "politics are dead," then she stopped breathing
where's my jetson car?
transactions of class warfare
jesus burger - all the way to china with a silver spoon july and august 2003
evil bees
alabama swamp chase
all the way to china with a silver spoon
bye bye bush
darth vadar ain't got shit on me
mary had a disco in her eyelid so that's checkmate satan
eventually someone will die... you!
hi, what's going on? or a question mark?
see you in hell friend
all the way to persia on a golden falafal
we are trained
speeding to our own demise
a happy list
jesus burger - anthemn may 2003
jesus burger anthemn
nietzsche's underpants
nothing escapes this blackhole
overcoming differences / give me you wallet
ripping a hole in your brain (again)
solar transformation inside two double a batteries
water under mars? or bullshit lunar landing?
jesus burger 8.30.04 - live at dunes
jesus burger - as the summer approaches, so do the nightcrawlers, and thus, the skin begins to rot away summer 2004
the ivory coast is littered with state suppression
alien fiddle contest
a halen and a van
garbage pail kids in paradise
the gift for being born
operrrra
ferns, saints, honey, and jesus
attack of the tv themes
jesus burger - Ice palace of risklessness january 2005
8 sets of 1
tylerstag
palace entrance into the death squad arsenio hall
shop till you shop
jesus burger is specially produced to be experienced at the loudest volume possible. jesus burger is especially useful before going to church and certainly while making foreplay. jesus burger is excellent mood music for calming your work environments. jesus burger loves you.
other places on the web you can find jesus burger:
jesus burger on myspace
jesus burger on purevolume
In the papers, on the news and in the minds of most Americans are Iraq, the war, Bush and Kerry. That's pretty much what's been on minds for the past few years. No mention of the mammoth oil happenings in Russia. Right now there is huge news in Russia over an oil company called Yukos.
I have been researching Russian oil companies and have found some interesting things. Yukos came out of curiosity about Halliburton and its subsidiaries. They have companies all over the world that handle software and the drilling for and refining of hydrocarbons. I found out that Landmark, a Halliburton software company, recently did a trade show in Moscow. Landmark is going to aid Exxon Neftegas in drilling in Russia. Exxon Neftegas signed a deal in 2002 to start drilling by 2005. (7)
I read about a company called Yukos, the second largest oil company in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is the person who owns the most shares of Yukos. Russia's richest man is now in jail for tax evasion and fraud, along with his business partner, Platon Lebedev. "Yukos, once lauded as a model of corporate transparency (the full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information) in Russia's murky business world, has been under legal assault since July." (4) The murky business world comment refers to the fact that the Kremlin intentionally stayed out of regulating Russia's largest companies. The post-communist giant-turned capitalist now has very specific interests in Yukos. The Kremlin claims that their investigation is purely criminal. Others think that the Kremlin wants a piece of the oil action. The Kremlin allows businesses to be privatized through foreign investors. For example, take Gazprom, Russia's equivalent to Halliburton. Gazprom's business tactics aren't exactly orthodox: "Most of Gazprom's problems pre-date the Putin regime. Past managers were allowed by the Kremlin to engage in what can only be called an orgy of stealing. Under President Boris Yeltsin, they transferred ownership of 18.4 billion cubic meters of gas reserves to a shadowy Florida-based company called Itera for little or no consideration. This allowed Itera to grow from scratch to something larger than Chevron Texaco in less than five years." (2) Gazprom sold a shitload of oil to Itera for about 10% of what it would have paid for from ExxonNefte Limited (about $.66 per barrel compared to $13 with ExxonNefte). Russia sold oil to us and we sold it back to ourselves for a higher price.
Back to Yukos. Yukos owes back taxes from 2000 in excess of $3.4 billion, not to mention another $3 billion for 2001 (three million USD is equivalent to about 99 billion Rubles.) Records show that Yukos dividends went from 300 million in 2000 to 2 billion USD by the beginning of 2003. (8) As mentioned beforehand, a Russian company could get deep into corruption and debt is because of the privatization of these companies, which could point to the new capitalist Kremlin seeking control of Yukos. Many people think that the Kremlin wants to infringe upon the political agenda for Lebedev and Khodorkovsky. The Kremlin has frozen Yukos' assets so that Yukos cannot sell shares to pay off the debt. "The charges by the Kremlin are being seen by some as an assault that many analysts see as an attempt to punish former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky for backing opposition political parties and challenging President Vladimir Putin's grip on power." (5) "The case… has been widely seen as a trial for the country's transition to capitalism, which saw some like Khodorkovsky win vast fortunes while the majority of Russians were plunged into poverty." (3) Khodorkovsky's lawyers refer to his trial as "private property on trial" (5). There has been evidence so far that Exxon, Mobil and BP may help bail out Yukos of the hole, which brings me to the next item.
The West is interested in privatizing oil from politically unstable regions like the Middle East. The U.S.-backed war in Iraq is a bloody conquest for the control of the oil fields and the privatization of them. If there were pipelines in Russia to Export oil to Texas, where the Iraqi oil is going, the U.S. could increase its oil consumption by about 10%. In fact, a pipeline from the eastern Russian coast is chortst and more cost efficient to export oil to Texas. "However, Russian infrastructure, including ports and pipelines, must be upgraded and expanded. First, a private pipeline should be built from the oil fields in Western Siberia to Murmansk--an Arctic port that is ice-free year-round--along with a deepwater oil terminal in Murmansk capable of servicing tankers with deadweight capacities of 500,000 tons. Through the Murmansk terminal alone, Russia could export 1-2 million barrels per day. Russia could also export oil to the U.S. through several Baltic Sea terminals or from Sakhalin Island (near Japan) via Nakhodka, a port on the Pacific Ocean." (6) Exxon Neftegas already signed contracts to drill on the coastal regions, which means that pipelines are pretty much gratuitous. Sakhalin-1 is the complex which was built to furnish this excursion. "It is worth mentioning that Sakhalin-1 is a major project based on the attraction of foreign investments in the economy of Russia. It covers three major oil and gas fields and will ensure the production of 2.3bn barrels (307m tons) of oil and 485bn cubic meters of gas. Oil production is supposed to be started in 2005." (7)
More pipelines? All I've been hearing about is the big one from the Caspian Sea down through the Middle East. Oddly enough, the president of Kazakhstan has invited his landlocked country along with some Middle East countries and Russia to form a sort of partnership in sharing oil exporting. This would privatize companies like Gazprom and Yukos, if it survives, into the hands of off shore investors. "Russia should become a major exporter of oil to the U.S. The political commitment is already in place. The best way to accomplish this goal is by harnessing private-sector expertise and financing to build the Siberia-Murmansk pipeline and the oil terminal in Murmansk." (6) This is big news that we ought to follow, but don't since we never hear about it.
As of July 20, 2004, Yukos has sold their largest stock, Yuganskneftegaz, which "accounts for 60 percent of production at Yukos, which as a whole pumps a fifth of Russia's oil (9)". The odd thing about this case is that Yukos, even while Khordokvsky is in jail, Yukos had the assets to pay off their taxes. "Yukos had offered to pay $1.3 billion and has a stake in Sibneft worth $2.5 to $3 billion." (9) (Sibneft is a stock package Yukos has invested in.) There is the real possibility that The Kremlin will allow investors to literally loot the company's assets if Yukos goes into bankruptcy.
Sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5..
6.
7.
8.
9.
The United Nations General Assembly demanded today that Israel tear down its West Bank barrier. The ruling refered to a World Court, or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), decision that Israel was to dismantle the wall and pay compensations to Palestinians which were affected by this 25 foot, 425 mile long "life saving" fence which is just 1/3 complete. The fence is equipt with barbed wire and security towers at certain parts. The vote was 150 in favor, 6 opposed, with 10 countires abstaining.
As expected, Israel voted against this idea, as they claim it keeps them “protected” from the Palestinians. Voting in opposition along with Israel were Australia and the Pacific island states of Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, and of course, the United States. Those who abstained from the vote were Canada, Cameroon, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay and Vanuatu.
"Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall," Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said once the voting outcome was decided. "When all is said and done, it is simply outrageous to respond with such vigor to a measure that saves lives and respond with such casual indifference and apathy to a Palestinian campaign that takes lives."
While supporting Israel with over $3 billion per year, America must now decide how to deal with a country who blatenly disregards international law. Don’t they?
"The U.S. is the only country condemned by the World Court for international terrorism-for "the unlawful use of force" for political ends."
~Noam Chomsky
Perhaps not, perhaps this is more of a symbolic decision than anything, as Israel faces no real punishment if they do not comply. And ignoring the rulings made by the world court by the most powerful nations (US, Israel) is not a rare occurance. In 1984, when the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and around Nicaragua was completely ignored by the US, who didn’t even show up to hear the verdict.
Where do we go from here?
Al-Kidwa said last week that the Palestinians would stop short of going to the Security Council for a binding resolution, which would likely be vetoed by the United States.
"At a later stage we will go to the Security Council," he said. He denied that the Palestinians were waiting until after the U.S. presidential elections to press their case before the council. Whether John Kerry as president will be of any aid is seriously in question as he has come out both for and against the wall.
Will Israel knock down their “protective barrier?” No signs point to yes, although with larger public attention towards news of the wall cannot help their cause. As Palestinians fight to regain land lost from the constructed wall, Israel contends that the world court has no juridiction over the wall. They have recognized the authority of the Israeli Supreme Court though, which ordered the army to change the route of the barrier in a 20-mile stretch near Jerusalem, saying it was causing too much hardship on the local Palestinian population.
The General Assembly acted after the World Court ruled in a July 9 "advisory opinion" that the barrier, which is still under construction, was illegal because it cut deep into West Bank land to shield settlements built by Israel on territory it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.
“If the goal were security, Israel would have built the fence a few km inside its borders. It could then be a mile high, patrolled on both sides by the IDF, mined with nuclear weapons, utterly impenetrable. Perfect security.
“The problem would be that it would not take valuable Palestinian land and resources (including control of water), drive out the population, and lay the basis for still further expansion as Palestinians flee from the dungeons that are left, like the town of Qalqilya. So to interpret as a land grab seems appropriate.”
~Noam Chomsky July 7
...and fuck all those that support the Summer Olympics this year.
"Authorities in the Greek capital fear the sight of packs roaming the streets will damage the country's bid to show it is modern and civilized" reports the RSPCA. By gassing or poisoning up to 15,000 dogs before Athens is invaded with Olympic fevered tourists, Greece will do nothing to present themselves as "modern and civilized." By allowing these actions to occur, to promote, participate, or even attend the Olympics this summer, you are allowing the unnecessary and cruel deaths of thousands of innocent dogs. Oh No! The sight of free animals roaming through a city cannot be seen by these super sports fans! Don't let the foreigners think anyone but the cars and the people will dominate these city streets! This disgusting notion of man taking the lives of nonhuman beings to appear "modern," may represent the politics of many powerful nations, but does nothing to reflect the actual people under these governments who similarly, are destroyed just because they stand as obstacles in a "better society."
In attempting to appear "civilized" I refuse to label the people of Greece who participate in these actions as nothing short of monsters, murderers, and savages. It is reported that if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) observes a problem with stray dogs in the city, it will instruct the government to deal with this. If Greece reacts with killing the stray dogs, and we have a joyously celebrated Summer Olympics, man will continue his position atop the chain of command over nature. Unless spoken out against, these actions which humans partake in when they destroy those who they feel they simply can, will continue. Voices of opposition must be heard for the ethical treatment of animals. When man decides he is better than all that isn’t human, he steps towards a very dangerous direction.
What can you do to help?
Contact Minister of Agriculture George Anomeritis on 212-4387, fax 363-1389 or send an email to yiorgos@anomeritis.gr to inquire about the humane treatment of animals in Greece.
Also send your inquiries to the general secretary of the Greek Tourism Organisation, Evgenios Giannakopoulos, adding that poisoning stray animals will seriously deter tourists from visiting Greece. Tel 327-1566, email venizelos@gnto.gr or generalenquiries@noc.culture.gr
This sample letter was provided through one of the sources-
I was concerned to learn that, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games, your government is looking into ways of dealing with the 'stray problem' and that it is feared mass poisoning will take place, especially in and around Athens, although I am aware these 'rumours' are being strongly denied. However, I can't help but wonder what other alternatives are being considered, especially if a widespread neutering scheme is not the accepted option and that, I believe, is the only long-term solution to resolving the 'stray problem'.
It is also the most humane method of reducing the number of unwanted stray dogs and cats. Leading up to and during the Olympic Games, the eyes of the world will be focused on Greece and a positive decision by the authorities - in regard to strays - would be looked upon favourably by the international community. News of harsh and cruel treatment of a country's animal population travels quickly in our age of the internet, and has a strong impact on how a country is viewed by the tourist community. In contrast, implementing humane alternative solutions for animal population control, would receive much positive press.
To round up the strays and place them into temporary 'shelters' would serve no purpose either; in fact, it would make matters worse [for the animals!]. Whatever decision is finally taken by your government will be awaited in anticipation, but I can but hope it will be the right one - for both the animal population as well as for the reputation of Greece as a civilized nation.
Sincerely,
------------------
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages;
not traditional animal agriculture but a complete end to all commerce in
the flesh of dead animals; not more humane hunting and trapping, but the
total eradication of these barbarous practices."
~Tom Regan
North Carolina State University
The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989
____________
source 1
The Brain Behind the Brainwash
by xarik nerdcore
An intelligent US public? That’s not the goal of the media, with its dumbed down soup of fear, sensationalism, and unquestioning patriotism. Radical grassroots activists, overwhelmed with the flood of insane patriotic imagery, make a false assumption: that people who buy into the stupid american dream are themselves…. Stupid.
True, it’s a lot easier to write folks off as stupid, than to actually engage with them. But when we focus on insane displays of patriotism, rather than the person behind them, we actually let the media and the government win. We perpetuate the fear of disagreement, debate, and critical thinking that allows this government to build an empire on lies.
Who are we, as radical grassroots activists, often based in urban areas, writing off? We don’t write off the urban poor, and other traditionally “oppressed” people – native people, migrant workers, for example. The people we discount are people who have bought, to some extent, into the american dream. From the far left, we see the folks in cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods, the folks flocking to the mall, the callers on AM Talk Radio, all feasting on american milk and honey.
Undeniably, folks who love the american dream are buying into a web of oppression. But the fact that they don’t appear to see this truth and fail to analyze the consequences of their actions, doesn't mean they're one-dimensional humans without potential for change. The american dream is the status quo, easy to adopt, if hard to actually obtain. People often have thoughts and feelings much more complex than what's seen on the outside. Truth be told, many “oppressed” people also want the american dream, it’s just not happening for them.
Neither is the appearance of american-style success a guarantee of happiness. There is real pain in the suburbs, small towns, rural areas, as well as in the cities—generalized dissatisfaction with life that goes far beyond 30-second sensationalized trauma spots in the news.
Many grassroots activists know this pain – many of us came to the urban scene from suburbs and small towns. We know that people can be stupid fucks and be damn proud of it. It’s fine that we’ve moved on. But we must remember that beneath that brainwashing is an actual brain, being fed practically nothing but grossly manipulated media.
In many parts of the US, there’s little access to the world news and analysis that the left thrives upon. American media does not encourage critical thinking. Issues are draped in patriotism, not framed in ways that foster consideration and discussion. Debate forums that do exist, like talk radio and political debate shows, are overwhelmed by dogmatic right-biased spectacle. So-called ‘alternative’ free weeklies have become cookie-cutter clones spewed out by a few companies.
Serious questioning and disagreement are tantamount to treason. Bush and Co’s conquering mentality – that there’s one answer, it’s American, and if you disagree, you are less than human – applies at home as well as abroad, and is essentially the end of debate.
The military industrial complex has powerful tools to smash dissent. The real threats of surveillance, infiltration, prison time, etc. make anything beyond very mundane disagreement with the government very scary. In this climate of fear, support for the government, whether active or passive, is much easier than fully articulating and acting upon dissenting views.
But imagine a world where disagreement was okay. Where you could support people you disagreed with, where tolerance for difference was the norm. Where critical thinking and raising questions meant respect and discussion instead of being a nerd, a pinko asshole, or a domestic terrorist. This is the antithesis of the american imperialist view of the world, and it is the real meaning of freedom.
Radical activists can start spreading this freedom today, by engaging with people outside our tight, friendship-based circles—people who don’t automatically share our view of the world, with whom we might disagree. This is not a critique of doing activism with groups of friends, nor is it necessarily a recruiting assignment for the suburbs. This is a call for engagement in support of critical thinking. Before I try to persuade somebody to adopt an anti-capitalist view of the world, I want them to have the critical thinking skills to actually consider what I’m saying. I want people to feel empowered to think critically about the daily news, the political double-speak, the whole nine yards, in hopes that once people start viewing the news with a critical eye, events will seems as blatantly ridiculous to them as they do to me.
This is about listening and sharing ideas with people as people, not as stereotypes. Folks won’t take you seriously if you don’t prove you care about what they actually think and feel. This effort is about sharing information, listening to people’s response, suggesting analysis—and then stepping back and trusting people to arrive at their own conclusions. This is the fundamental difference between recruitment and engagement.
I don’t expect people to come flocking to our movement. People have their own ways of processing information and creating change. Politicizing doesn’t necessarily mean organizing—that’s its own very valid project. I’m scattering seeds, not looking for immediate recognition and political affinity. In the process, we might very well meet new friends and action partners, people who would find this activist scene on their own in a few years. Why should we wait for people to find their own radical grassroots movement? Let’s put ourselves out in the world!
Let’s go to people in neutral environments, where they’re comfortable. Let’s think beyond the old recipe of “talking” to people – sometimes a surprisingly challenging act. Let’s go to the suburbs with flyers, posters, sticker campaigns, street theater, several times a year. Let’s go in approachable small groups, looking like we’re interested in people instead of attacking The Man. Let’s cover cafes and Laundromats in alternative media. Let’s listen to people, so we can understand people outside of divisive stereotypes. Let’s try to discover the many motivations behind what comes off as unquestioning patriotism, so we can better understand why people put up with — and appear to enjoy – all this shit.
Some folks will call this an invasion or a missionary expedition. I think it’s mutual aid. We don’t want folks to become slaves to ideology. The message is, Stop – Don’t React – Think.
I broke down and watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. Everyone told me the movie is wonderful and packed full of images that even the most informed may not have considered. That is true, but it wasn't enough to convince me to go to a corporate cinema and pay 10 bucks to see a political film. Luckily, a friend downloaded a bootleg from an anti-Moore website. Excellent quality, I must say, and I recommend the bootleg style if you are able to go that route. Michael Moore himself doesn't mind as long as no one is profiting from the bootlegs.
The most memorable scene from the movie is near the very beginning when Moore says that if just one senator would've signed the house petition denying the ruling of the Supreme Court (in the 2000 election), Al Gore would have been president. Watching the African American representatives go up one by one and call Senate leader Al Gore "Mr. President," was extremely painful to me. As Al beat his gavel and asked if any senator had signed the petition, congress answered, "No, Mr. President, and I don't care Mr. President."
The question I have is where the fuck was John Kerry, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy? Why did the Democrat Senators roll over and accept the Supreme Court's ruling of the presidency, when all it would of taken was just one signature? This points to a couple of different hypothesis. 1)The Democrats in the Senate hated Al Gore and would have rather served under Bush. 2)They were paid off by Enron, Caryle, Unical, or another corporation to keep their mouths shut and allow everything that has happened to go as planned per The Project for the New American Century. 3)They were sleeping during this session. 4)There is really no difference between a Democrat and a Republican. They both work for the elite to rule the world's economy. Federal elections only exist to pacify the ignorant masses into thinking the United States is a Republic of the people.
Thinking about it, all of these hypothesis seem likely. It is a terrible joke, or extreme ignorance, to think that the most powerful country in the world would actually let working people decide who their leaders are going to be. No, no, no, that decision is made by big business- period. It is a choice between one puppet or another but if you follow the strings you will find the same shareholders holding the ends that are either the puppet's leash or a hangman's noose. We must overthrow the government. We must write ballot incentives to castrate the power of the ruling elite. We must deny them our participation in their economy by boycotting all corporate goods. We must turn off their brain-washers (THE TELEVISION IS CONTROL)! We must save our lives one by one.
The John Kerrys and the George Bushs of America are running the reputation of the American people through the mud and there will be reprecussions. More heroes are going to attack this country because our murderous corporate government is completely out of control. We must throw wrenches into the machine. WAKE UP PEOPLE. PLEASE!!! This is going to be much worse than if we were Germans in World War II. Our reign of fascism and terror has already touched every corner of the earth.
Where were the Democrats? They are bought my friends, don't let them fool you into thinking they care more about the people. They are just as rotten and power-hungry as Dick Cheney. They are no longer (nor ever were) fit to rule a "republic of the people." Overthrow! Overthrow! Overthrow!
International Socialist Review Issue 36, July–August 2004
John Kerry: The me-too candidate
BY ELIZABETH SCHULTE
"I don’t think anybody in their right mind is going to run for president on a strategy of ‘people hate the other guy and that’s enough for our guy to win,’" Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for Bill Clinton, told the New York Times at the end of May.1 Well, John Kerry might just be that candidate.
Many months have passed since Kerry began calling corporate CEOs "Benedict Arnolds," and Kerry has covered a lot of political ground–straight to the right. He’s shed the populist rhetoric he used in order to steal Howard Dean’s thunder to take the primaries, and traded it in for what the media and political consultants call "electability"–the idea that, in order for a candidate to stand a chance he cannot be too far "out of the mainstream."
That translates into:_support for the war in Iraq and the "war on terror," support for the USA_PATRIOT Act, and opposition to gay marriage. He even believes that there are occasions when preemptive war is necessary, a key component of the Bush Doctrine.
Still, for millions of people, the top priority in the November election is throwing Bush out of the White House, no matter how bad the alternative. The mantra is "Anybody but Bush."
But some important questions have to be asked. Will the policies of a Kerry administration be that different from those of a Bush administration? And why, if so many people are disgusted with Washington’s reign of terror–on the people of Iraq and on workers and the poor at home–is Kerry getting away with offering so little of an alternative?
A less hawkish alternative?
"When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to distinguish between President Bush’s prescription and that of Senator John Kerry," wrote New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson in late May.2 John Kerry is as committed to continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq as Bush is. "Americans differ about whether and how we should have gone to war,’’ Kerry said in a recent radio address. "But it would be unthinkable now for us to retreat in disarray and leave behind a society deep in strife and dominated by radicals.’’3
Kerry favors spreading the burden of the occupation to our allies around the world. But so does Bush. In his televised press conference from the East Room of the White House in May, Bush, too, announced his intention to bring in the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The similarity of Kerry’s position to the Bush administration’s position had conservatives singing Kerry’s praises. "The most important thing about Sen. Kerry’s op-ed, I thought is how similar it really is to Bush administration policy, and that I say in praise of him," William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, said in an interview with the Washington Post’s Terry Neal. Kristol is also chairman of Project for the New American Century, the pro-war foreign policy think tank that has called for war on Iraq since the mid—1990s.
"He is not willing to cut and run from Iraq," Kristol said of Kerry, "He wants the UN to be more involved, but he doesn’t say if we can’t get the UN more involved, we should get out. President Bush is trying to get the UN involved, too."4
Rather than posing an alternative to the hawks in the Bush administration, Kerry has tried to establish himself as an even tougher version of Bush. "I can fight a more effective war on terror than George Bush," Kerry said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "I will make America safer and stronger than George Bush has."5 "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror," Kerry likes to say. "I believe he’s done too little."6 Kerry is eager to prove that he has no problem with preemptive war when needed. In mid—March, he vowed to "do whatever it takes to ensure that the 21st century American military is the strongest in the world. I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the war on terror."7
And here is where we get a sense of why exactly Kerry favors a more multilateral approach. "Working with other countries in the war on terror is something we do for our sake–not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets," Kerry said in February.8 Though, it should be added, a key component of Kerry’s plan to revitalize the military "for our sake" includes a doubling of U.S. Special Forces.9
He has criticized the Bush administration for its single-mindedness over Iraq, which he says has diverted attention from the real focus–making sure that Korea and Iran don’t develop nuclear weapons. He accuses Bush of making the military weaker, supporting more troops, at least 40,000, to be on the ready to go after "terrorist organizations with or without ties to rogue nations and failed states."10 Kerry also proposes enlisting the National Guard in Homeland Security to "break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement."11
So dedicated is Kerry to upholding Israel’s watchdog status in the Middle East, he is willing to defend Israel’s worst atrocities. When Meet the Press’s Tim Russert asked Kerry what he thought of the assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi in April, the Democrat responded, "I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it.… And I support Israel’s efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure."12 Kerry also told Russert that he agreed with Bush’s announcement that Israel could keep part of the land seized in the 1967 war and that Palestinian refugees could not return to their homes.
Kerry supports the foreign policy agenda of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the Democrats’ counterpart to the neoconservatives’ Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In the fall of 2003, the hawkish PPI unveiled their nineteen-page manifesto, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." The similarities between the two organization’s views is underscored by the fact that six Democrats, including a member of the PPI, were among the twenty-three people who signed PNAC’s March 19, 2003, letter to the Bush administration on post-war Iraq advocating a long occupation. The people that Kerry has selected for his foreign policy team could stand toe to toe with any of the Bush hawks. Kerry’s team includes Richard Morningstar and Rand Beers. Morningstar, a former Clinton adviser, pushed for the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that opens up access to oil in the Caspian Sea. The Clinton administration recruited the likes of Dick Cheney and James Baker to lobby local governments to accept the construction of the pipeline.
Beers is best known for his work in the Clinton administration for the deadly crop-fumigation program in Colombia. "If John Kerry lets Rand Beers continue to guide his foreign policy, a Kerry administration will be no better for rural Colombians than a Bush administration," wrote Sean Donahue of the Massachusetts Anti-Corporate Clearinghouse.13
Kerry’s foreign policy arguments are driven less by "electability" and more out of agreement over policy goals. The Democratic Party has signed off on the same imperial project–ensuring U.S. control over Iraq’s oil resources, setting new terms for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, and using the "war on terror" as a means for projecting U.S. power internationally. Yet it is also clear that the neocons have bungled the effort, and this is where Kerry comes in. When he argues that he is for a "stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned,"14 he is pitching to the ruling class that he can restore the allied support for, legitimacy to, and renewed strength of, America’s imperial agenda.
The apologists for Kerry are therefore mistaken in arguing that the Bush Doctrine is the work of a small coterie of right-wing neocons. It is in fact the policy of the ruling class, and therefore, a bipartisan policy. The problem for Kerry is not the invasion of Iraq, it is the bungling of the invasion of Iraq. For the growing numbers of powerful politicians and businessmen who have abandoned Bush for Kerry, the issue is how to get the war on terror back on track, not how to scuttle it. That explains why Bush and Kerry’s positions are converging: Bush wants to fix his mistakes; Kerry wants to convince the ruling class that he will be the better fixer.
The "L" word
Kerry began his political career after returning from serving in Vietnam as an opponent of the war. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" Kerry asked in a 1971 Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"15 But Kerry soon turned his back on the antiwar movement–to pursue his career as a liberal Washington politician.
Lately he has gone out of his way to make sure no one thinks he’s a liberal either. Accused of being a liberal by one moderator during the February Democratic debate in New York City, Kerry snapped, "It’s absolutely the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen in my life." He then backed up this statement with a long list of less-than-liberal credentials, including "deficit reduction" and putting "100,000 police officers on the streets of America."16
During his nineteen-year Senate career, Kerry cast a number of liberal votes–for example, he voted against Clinton’s antigay Defense of Marriage Act and has opposed bans on the late-term abortion procedure that the anti-abortion fanatics have purposely misnamed "partial birth" abortion. These have won Kerry the reputation of being a liberal. But for Kerry, this is a credential that can be easily discarded.
Campaigning in 1984, Kerry called for canceling weapons systems such as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, and the Patriot missile. Today, he calls his position at the time "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I’ve learned since then."17 In 1983, Kerry harshly criticized Ronald Reagan’s order to invade Grenada. "I was dismissive of the majesty of the invasion of Grenada," Kerry says today. "But I basically was supportive. I never publicly opposed it."18
Kerry has also taken some positions that are far from liberal. In 1992, Kerry warned an audience at his alma mater, Yale University (where he, like Bush, was a member of the Skull and Bones society), about a "culture of dependency.… We must ask whether [social disintegration] is the result of a massive shift in the psychology of our nation that some argue grew out of the excesses of the 1960s, a shift from self-reliance to indulgence and dependence, from caring to self-indulgence, from public accountability to public abdication and chaos. The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms."19
By the mid—1990s, Kerry increasingly aligned himself with the "New Democrat" wing of the Democratic Party like Clinton. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which was founded by Southern and Western Democrats and their corporate lobbyists after the Democrats’ landslide Michael Dukakis defeat in 1984. Its goal was to "turn the party around" by purging itself of the image of the party of "special interests"–in other words, women’s and civil rights groups and trade unions. The party, DLC leaders argued, had gone too far to the left and had to be pulled into the "mainstream."
Kerry’s position on affirmative action, for example, was completely in line with that of the Clinton administration’s, with its concentration on "personal responsibility" as an excuse to justify cuts in social spending.
One of the best examples of the DLC agenda in practice is the Clinton administration’s dismantling of welfare with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In one fell swoop, Clinton reversed many of the gains of the New Deal and threw millions of people off of the welfare rolls with tough new rules and work restrictions. And Clinton, as a Democrat, was able to accomplish all this without even so much as a picket from liberal organizations.
Kerry backed Clinton’s welfare "reform" bill to the hilt. He also helped push through Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill, which promised to put 100,000 cops on the streets, and the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which expanded the number of crimes punishable by the death penalty. Clinton’s antiterrorism bill also prohibited fundraising for vaguely defined "terrorist" organizations and loosened rules against the deportation of legal immigrants–years before the Bush administration thought of pushing through even more repressive provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act.
When the Republicans took over Congress in Newt Gingrich’s so-called "Republican revolution" of 1994, Kerry blamed the Democratic Party. "I want this change," Kerry told the Boston Herald. "The Democrats have articulated…a very poor agenda. It’s hard for me to believe that some of these guys could have been as either arrogant or obtuse as to not know where the American people were coming from."20 Kerry argued that Democrats were being punished for suggesting policies that were too liberal, such as universal health care.
Kerry said recently of Clinton’s health care program, "I mean, I’ve learned the lessons of 1993. I didn’t even sign on to the Clinton (health plan) in 1993. I looked at it and said "Whoa. Too many boxes. Too bureaucratic. Too much government."21
Commenting on his current health care proposal, Kerry told the Wall Street Journal, "I’ve tried to make it market-based and thoughtful. I haven’t met a company that hasn’t said "Wow, you’ll take 75 percent of the cost of my catastrophic cases off my back, and all I have to do is pass the savings on.… I personally talk to executives everywhere I go, in New York or elsewhere. They say, "spectacular.""22
So it wasn’t that much of a stretch for Kerry to step over partisan lines in 2002 and vote for Bush’s education proposal, the misnamed No Child Left Behind Act, which shortchanged struggling public schools.
Under Clinton, abortion access declined steadily. It’s likely that Kerry will stand by while this happens as well. He opposes abortion personally, but defends it on the basis that it is the law. Recent comments from Kerry put into question whether he is really all that dedicated to preserving abortion as the law of the land. Kerry, a devout Catholic who says he once considered becoming a priest, said in May that he might even appoint an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice if it provided necessary "balance" to the Court.
Bragging that he voted to confirm Antonin Scalia in 1986, Kerry told reporters that he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. Asked about future Court picks if he’s offered the chance, Kerry said, "Do they have to agree with me on everything? No…that doesn’t mean that if that’s not the balance of the court I wouldn’t be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I’ve already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."23
Kerry made his abysmal position on gay marriage clear in the run-up to the issuing of first same-sex marriage in U.S. history in his home state of Massachusetts after the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that "separate is seldom equal" also applied to marriage rights. Kerry used this historic moment to say that, while he was in favor of civil unions for gays and lesbians, he was opposed to actual marriage. "I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court’s decision,’’ Kerry said in February.24 Kerry also said that he believed that the decision whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples should be "left up to the states," the same argument that Southern segregationists used to argue against integrating public schools.
The primary difference at this point between Clinton and Kerry’s campaigns is that Clinton disguised his DLC politics with liberal rhetoric in order improve his electoral prospects, whereas Kerry has dispensed even with that.
Cash and Kerry
"Democrats can’t love jobs and hate the people who create jobs," was Kerry’s not-so-coded message to corporate backers at a stump speech in Bedford, N.H.25
Even his plan to create more jobs is a sop to corporations. He wants to create ten million new jobs in the U.S.–by awarding tax credits to companies that move their investments back to the U.S. He also favors another capital gains tax cut.
When Kerry had the opportunity to really help workers in May, when the Senate voted on an amendment to tax legislation that would have extended unemployment for 1.5 million workers who have used up their benefits since December 31, he didn’t. Kerry was on the campaign trail when the amendment failed–by one vote.
And forget about counting on Kerry if you’re a teacher. The Democrat’s proposal to "fix" troubled schools includes ending tenure for public school teachers.
Personally Kerry would know little about what it’s like to have to work to make ends meet. Thanks in part to the riches of his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, the richest of all senators lives in an elegant Georgetown house when he’s "working" in Washington. The couple can choose to vacation at Heinz homes on Nantucket Harbor and in the mountains of Idaho, both easily accessible in their private jet. Forbes magazine put the Kerrys’ net worth at more than $550 million in 2002.26
With nineteen years as a senator serving on several senate committees, Kerry has a long, proven relationship with the people who reign over the corporate boardrooms. In addition to the transportation and health care industries, Kerry has powerful ties to lobbyists for the telecommunications industry. Michael Whouley, a Kerry political aide, is a lobbyist for telecom giant AT&T.
Kerry has also accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Boston lobbying firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo–where Kerry’s brother is a lawyer–which represents communications firms and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. Not surprisingly, Kerry voted in favor of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that is responsible for massive media consolidation and huge cable television fee increases.
If Kerry initially tossed a little anti-corporate rhetoric into his stump speeches, Wall Street wasn’t all that worried about it. "The anti-business message bothers me and I’m going to talk to him about that," John Catsimatidis, chief executive of food-and-oil conglomerate Red Apple Group, told the Wall Street Journal. "But…you’re never going to have the perfect candidate."27
"I’m calling everyone I know and telling them that they have to give," said Stephen Robert of Robert Capital Management Group, Inc., a self-identified moderate Republican who was one of about twenty potential fundraisers at a private dinner with Kerry in New York in February. "Every day, moderate Republicans call me and say, ‘I want to get on board.’"28
Kerry’s assurance to high rollers at a $25,000-a-plate breakfast fundraiser at the posh "21" Club in Manhattan to "fear not," because "I am not a redistribution Democrat… who wants to go back and make the mistakes of the Democratic Party of 20, 25 years ago,"29 stands as the signature messages of his campaign to America’s rich. I’m one of you, he is telling them. I will continue to cut social spending and transfer wealth from poor to rich. The profits that you have amassed at the expense of workers over the past two decades will be safe in my administration.
Anybody but Bush?
Well over a year before it was clear who the Democratic Party nominee would be, liberals and even some on the Left were already warning of the dangers of not supporting a Democrat to oust Bush. And now that Kerry–who is the farthest thing from a "movement choice"–is the man who has been anointed to beat Bush, the push is on to coerce progressives into supporting him.
Mark Green, a former Nader Raider consumer activist, argued "the minor differences between the Democratic nominee and me on Iraq are microscopic compared to the chasm between me and Bush."30 Unfortunately, this argument has had an effect. Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, said that among antiwar activists there is "a lot of murmuring" about Kerry’s posture on Iraq. But Borosage, who disagrees with Kerry on sending more troops to Iraq, predicted the activists ultimately will support the Democrat. "People see very clearly this time what the stakes are in this election," he said. "Bush unifies progressives with Kerry the way Clinton unified conservatives."31
Unfortunately, even renowned opponent of U.S. imperialism Noam Chomsky has made this argument. "Kerry is sometimes described as ‘Bush-lite,’ which is not inaccurate," Chomsky said in an interview with the British Guardian online. "But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."32
This is exactly what Kerry and the Democratic Party establishment are hoping for. "People are so desperate to get rid of Bush that they are going to cut the Democratic candidate a lot of slack," Representative Jerrold Nadler, a liberal Democrat from Manhattan who opposed the war, told the New York Times.33
Joe Trippi, who was Howard Dean’s campaign manager, said he didn’t think that Kerry’s position on the war would hurt him. "On the war, I don’t think there’s a problem there at all," Trippi told the New York Times. "Even the Nader fanatics won’t do it because of George Bush. They don’t want another four years of this guy."34
"Kerry has less of a problem on the left in the Democratic Party than any Democratic candidate in my memory, which goes back to [John F.] Kennedy," said Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "The proof of that is I am less busy this presidential campaign than other ones. I’m not being sent out to calm down the left."35
Underlying all the election-year lowering of expectations is the fact that millions of people are fed up with Bush and his war in Iraq. A May 11 Gallup poll showed Bush’s approval rating had fallen to 46 percent, the lowest of his presidency. Support for the war in Iraq slipped to 44 percent–a new low.
Pollster John Zogby made the point that that it would seem for Kerry that there would be a mathematical logic to calling for withdrawal. "His support corresponds almost in a one-on-one ratio with those who oppose the war."36
Kerry could capitalize on this deep dissatisfaction with the Bush agenda, but, unless be feels forced to make a drastic shift in the campaign, he won’t. It’s not simply that Kerry wants to appear more "electable" or that he’s more interested in peeling off conservatives who usually vote for the Republican. Kerry’s pro-war, pro-business campaign is a message to the U.S. ruling class that, if Bush doesn’t make it back into the White House, then Kerry is a perfectly good alternative. The Democratic Party candidate is a second good option for American business, U.S. imperialism, and the status quo–Plan B.
So far, it appears that Kerry might even be willing to risk losing the election to prove this point. As the Washington Post’s Terry Neal pointed out, "Essentially Kerry’s argument is not over whether the United States should have gone to war in Iraq–since he continues to insist his vote was the right one–or whether the United States should stay in Iraq and finish the job.… If Bush and Kerry differ little on the major issue of the day, what rationale do voters have for a change?"37
As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, pointed out, "Many liberals and left-wingers will find it hard to support a Democratic candidate who, like Hubert Humphrey in 1968, advocates staying the course on a war they hate. Kerry’s political problem is that he supports Bush’s Iraq objective and differs only on the means…Unless he comes up with something better, Kerry will lose the war issue that was his for the taking."38
The U.S. ruling class may have it’s Plan B alternative in Kerry, but for activists who have spent the last few years opposing the rotten policies of the Bush administration, Kerry is no choice at all. Many activists will vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush, but, as the record showed, if they vote for Kerry they’ll still get Bush.
Others believe that having a Democrat in office will mean that at least there is someone who will to listen to our side. So far, Kerry has proven the opposite–the Left’s support can be taken for granted. Ultimately, this means that our side ends up weaker, not stronger. In the run-up to elections, activists are always asked to fold up shop in order to not embarrass the Democrat. Once in office, activism again must be put on the backburner to "give the Democrat time." In the run-up to the April "March for Women’s Lives" protest in Washington, D.C., liberal women’s groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) bragged that they had not organized a national protest in twelve years. During that time–under Democrat Clinton–abortion rights were chipped away, restriction by restriction and state by state, and no liberal women’s organization called a protest.
Activists who attended the April demonstration got a good idea of what kind of stress groups like NOW and NARAL Pro-Choice America would be putting on grassroots activism–absolutely none. March organizers made sure that the event, which turned out a massive crowd of one million people, amounted to little more than a rally for John Kerry. If Kerry gets into office, how long will NOW give him time to defend access to abortion?
Likewise with the issue of gay marriage. A promising movement around it, with "mass marriages" and demonstrations, could be flourishing at this moment if not for the tremendous pressure from leading Democrats such as Barney Frank who have argued that now (i.e., during an election) isn’t the time to protest.
But the biggest chill that the anybody but Bush atmosphere leading up to the November election is creating is around the question of the occupation of Iraq, where there is a tremendous gap between the intensity of crisis at the top and the lack of organized antiwar resistance from below.
Bush’s popularity is plummeting as the torture scandal goes from bad to worse; and the occupation is in shambles. But rather than encouraging struggles for justice–opposition to the occupation in Iraq, for abortion rights, for workers’ rights–the Democratic Party is discouraging them. When progressives are asked to hold their nose and vote for Kerry, they are being coerced not only into setting aside the issues they care about, but supporting a candidate who represents the opposite values–a candidate who is pro-war and pro-business to his core. In exchange for demobilization, we get somebody else’s agenda. This is why we need to build an activist opposition to Washington’s rotten policies–whether a Democrat or a Republican is making them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Adam Nagourney, "Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path," New York Times, May 27, 2004.
2 Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson, "Candidates’ Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities," New York Times, May 26, 2004.
3 Remarks by John Kerrry, "Radio Address to the nation," April 17, 2004, available online at http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/_spc_2004_0417.html.
4 Terry M. Neal, "Kerry’s Iraq Policy Makes the War Issue Bush’s to Lose," Washington Post, April 16, 2004.
5 Jacob M. Schlesinger, "Kerry’s Mission: Show He Can Lead," Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2004.
6 Ibid.
7 Speech by John Kerry, Washington, D.C., March 17, 2004, transcript on www.johnkerry.com.
8 "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism," Remarks by Senator John Kerry at the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, February 27, 2004, available at http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/_spc_2004_0227.html.
9 Dan Balz, "Kerry Says He Would Add 40,000 to Army," Washington Post, Friday, June 4, 2004.
10 Ibid.
11 "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism."
12 Tim Russert interviews John Kerry, Meet the Press, April 18, 2004.
13 Sean Donahue, "Kerry’s Drug War Zealot," Counterpunch, January 26, 2004.
14 "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism."
15 Michael Kranish, "With antiwar role, high visibility," Part 3 in "John Kerry: Candidate in the Making" series, Boston Globe, June 16, 2003.
16 Democratic Party candidate debate, February 29, 2004, New York City, transcript available on cbsnews.com.
17 Brian C. Mooney, "Taking one prize, then a bigger one," Part 5 in "John Kerry: Candidate in the Making" series, Boston Globe, June 19, 2003.
18 Ibid.
19 John Aloysius Farrell, "At the center of power, seeking the summit," in "John Kerry: Candidate in the Making" series, Boston Globe, June 21, 2003.
20 Ibid.
21 Jerry Seib, John Harwood and Jacob Schlesinger, "An Interview With John Kerry," Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2004.
22 Ibid.
23 Ron Fournier, "Kerry Open to OK Anti-Abortion Judges," Associated Press, May 19, 2004.
24 John Solomon, "Kerry opposed gay marriage ban in letter" Associated Press, February 12, 2004.
25 Speech by John Kerry, "A Workers’ Bill of Rights," Bedford, N.H., January 7, 2004, transcript at www.johnkerry.com.
26 Davide Dukcevich, "Rich Pols: A Look at America's Richest Politicians," ABC news, November 4, 2003, available at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/forbes_richpols_021104.html.
27 Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Jeanne Cummings, "Kerry Gets a Lifeline from Wall Street," Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2004.
28 Ibid.
29 Jodi Wilgoren, "Kerry Plans Effort to Show He Is a Centrist," New York Times, April 16, 2004.
30 Farah Stockman, "Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy," Boston Globe, April 26, 2004.
31 Ibid.
32 Matthew Tempest, "Chomsky backs ‘Bush-lite’ Kerry," The Guardian, March 20, 2004.
33 Adam Nagourney, "Why the Democrats’ Left Wing Is Muted," New York Times, May 29, 2004.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 James Harding, "Kerry avoids anti-war campaigning," Financial Times, May 11, 2004.
37 Terry M. Neal, "Kerry’s Iraq Policy Makes the War Issue Bush’s to Lose," Washington Post, April 16, 2004.
38 Charles Krauthammer, "Kerry Adrift," Washington Post, April 23, 2004.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/36/kerry.shtml
DONKEY. ELEPHANT. CHICKEN?
The pacifists stick to their guns, and then some.
By Matt Taibbi
Well, thank god the Green Party came to its senses last week and nominated David Cobb to run for the presidency, ending that whole ugly Ralph Nader episode. I was afraid I might have to make an actual decision before this upcoming election—but now I can safely be a gutless worm and throw my vote away to a gang of ferrety, querulous, self-flagellating intellectuals who learned politics from the '61 Mets.
What a relief! Now, when I have to explain my electoral choices at Upper West Side cocktail parties in 2005, I can have it both ways! I did—and I didn't! It's perfect!
For those of you who didn't follow this story, Cobb snatched the Green Party nomination away from Nader last week largely through his embrace of the so-called "safe states" strategy, known affectionately in political circles as the "Crack Suicide Squad" approach to campaigning. In this scenario, Mssr. Cobb agrees in advance to refrain from campaigning in any state where the Greens might have a chance to affect the outcome of the Bush-Kerry race. Bravely, however, he condescends to campaign balls-out in any state where a vote for the Greens doesn't matter. This is the kind of political warfare that would have made the Mensheviks proud: whistle-stop tours full of rowdy Greens singing "Kum Ba Yah" and "Give Peace a Chance" in front of crowds of two dozen in Cambridge and Portland and Seattle.
There is simply no way to explain the Green Party's decision to nominate Cobb except as a formal admission/cementing of its national role as a quixotic affectation for the spineless intellectuals of the Starbucks-and-SUV set. This is the kind of politics you get when you raise a generation of people who don't understand the difference between brand identification and ideological conviction. Much the same way that Burger King and McDonald's are scrambling to figure out a way that you can be on the Atkins diet and still spend your money at their vile, ass-inflating restaurants, Cobb and his party basically figured out a way that Nation subscribers can wear Green this fall and still keep their friends. They have turned politics into a shoe and a handbag, a conquered market demographic.
Vote Green—elect Kerry! Lose weight—drink Lo-Carb Coca-Cola! It's the same thing, on many different levels. Because both decisions really boil down to the same insane compromise: trying to fit an instinct to reject corporate consumer culture into the ruling paradigm of corporate consumer culture.
Logic dictates: If you want to lose weight, the way to do that is not to drink the right kind of Coca-Cola. The way to do it is to not drink Coca-Cola. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but it is apparently beyond the grasp of most Greens.
Similarly, if you don't believe in things like corporate personhood, if you are against the war in Iraq, if you are against the scourge of corporate money in politics, if you are in favor of a reduction in military spending, if you want to abolish the WTO and NAFTA, if you want to end the export of arms, if you want to break up media monopolies, if you want to get Channel 1 out of public schools, if you want to end the targeting of children by corporate advertisers—if you believe any of these things, or more to the point, if they are embedded in your party platform, then you can't vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats, because they're united against you all the way down the line.
I understand the logic of the Greens' decision. I don't agree with the "anybody but Bush" idea, but I will admit that it is a rationally defensible position, one that makes sense on some primitive level. What does not make sense here is why the burden of "anybody but Bush" should fall on the Green Party. The burden really rests with the Democrats. If they want to end the Green Party problem, then those votes are there for the taking. All the Democrats have to do is renounce the WTO and NAFTA, create a universal healthcare system and slash the defense budget, putting the proceeds into education and healthcare. Among other things.
But the Democrats won't do that; they're too addicted to corporate money. They're money junkies. And as anyone who's had any experience with junkies will tell you, junkies cannot be trusted. They'll say anything you want them to say about going straight, but at the critical moment, they'll still steal your television and shoot it straight into their arms.
The only way to deal with a junkie is to change your phone number or, if you ever find him in your house, chain him to a radiator. If you're feeling generous, you might consider bringing him hot chocolate and chicken broth during the three days he spends freaking out and writhing on your floor. But the one thing you can't do is keep giving him that one last chance. That only guarantees that he will come back again very soon, covered with mysterious bruises and needing 200 bucks to pay for—tchya, right—a Hepatitis shot.
Shit, just look at what's happened since the last election. The junkies got kicked out of office, which ought to have been a wake-up call, and what did they do? They went out and almost unanimously voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and two wars.
And now here they come, four years later, and they say: "We need all your votes right now or we're fucked." Am I the only one laughing?
That said, I understand the Democrats' point of view. I used to take a lot of drugs, too. And when you take a lot of drugs, absolutely nothing matters except getting off. In the quest for drugs, any kind of behavior is excusable. You will be standing with a nice fat gram firmly in your fist and you'll still stare your best friend right in the eyes and swear to him that you couldn't find anything, either. And the funny thing is that later, when he finds out that you've been smacked out watching Starship Troopers for three days, he won't even be mad. He'll laugh. Because he would've done the same thing to you.
That's junkie morality. That's why, from the Democrats' point of view, it makes perfect sense to nominate a gazillionaire missile-humping aristocrat who'll have more corporate logos pasted on him than a NASCAR driver when he gets into office. What's the difference? We got off! Why is everybody complaining?
But this line of reasoning doesn't make sense for the Green Party. If you're going to suck a cock in a train-station lavatory, you ought to at least get something for it. But the Greens are going to roll over for John Kerry, and in the best-case scenario all they're going to get for it is another insane trade agreement, more troops in Iraq, more corporate handouts and another my-dog-ate-my-homework healthcare fiasco.
Yes, Bush is a moron and a monster, and it would be better if he were not around. But America's political problems are bigger than Bush. The real problem in American politics is the rule of calculation and money over principle, and until this problem is fixed, the Bushes of the world will always be with us.
The Greens used to offer a solution. They've now become part of the problem.
Courtesy of nypress.com
Puppets and the puppeteers who love them.
Information available at opensecrets.org
When I got inside the Convention Center, 2 hours later than the actual start of the event, I got a funny feeling. There was energy in the room, perhaps more energy than would normally be in such a fancy, well kept room. Thick carpeting, reflective gold metal and strong illumination grabs the eyes, while the ears are taken over by the booming sound system. The same system which told me (and the hundred+ others) that they had reached the halfway point, and after a 15 minute break, would be back. As soon as my soft seat was getting warm, I was up again, browsing the tables in the hallway. Multnomah Community Television, freepress.net, Reclaim the Media, Money in Politics Research Action Project, and a handful of others were providing pamphlets, stickers, psuedo tattoos, and balloons to the public, it appeared to be a buffet of information to the knowledge hungry.
Once I got stuffed, I went back into the hall, getting a closer seat to the gang seated up front. From left to right sat: KBOO Board Member L. C. Hansen, President of Brown Broadcast Services Michael Brown, Curt Henninger- Senior VP and GM of Comcast for Oregon & SW Washington, Director of Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission David C. Olson, and a funny self titled "Brit" named Nigel Ballard, Wireless Director for Matric Networks. Moderating, and dead center, with the highest podium, was Regina Lawrence. To Regina's left (my right) sat the two good guys from the FCC, Jonathan Adelstein & Michael Copps.
After a great intro from the first two, and a hiss riddled intro from the tannest member from Comcast, David Olson stole the spotlight with a great introduction, getting the audience to laugh, to cheer, & to feel proud for being what we are, whatever that is. Then the funny Brit said some things in his Belvedereian language and left it at that. In no time the audience started their testimonials, speaking mostly to the two FCC members about a wide range of topics. Comcast fell victim to charges of bad worker treatment, watching Henninger gulp and run dry of free water was quite the spectacle. Hansen and Brown sat smirking while watching Henninger attempt to smile his way through the attacks. To his credit, and as was cited, Comcast was the only major media to attend the event, while no cable news covered the event whatsoever. Henninger was the sacrificial lamb tonight, he must've pissed someone off back at the office. I began to feel sympathy for him, then I realized he was the VICE PRESIDENT of Comcast for the area, not some bottom of the barrel schlub from the PR dept. He WAS Comcast and all of their evil empire. So I quickly shook sense back into my head and laughed at the discomfort.
Fortunately, the discomfort of the corporate stooge was not the highlight of the evening. What was incredible were the public testimonials, often emotional and full of compassion and intelligence, pleading to the FCC members to bring back this or that bit of thought to Washington DC. Adelstein & Copps sat listening to all and took a brief moment to talk to the crowd. Adelstein commented on the absense of cable news coverage, and said they needed to use Portland as the model for independent growth in media. He spoke of using the digital spectrum as a means of trade with mega-corps, getting some public use guaranteed from a deal. Michael Copps, who resembles a well drawn member of Doonesbury, talked of the tough work ahead and yet saw some excellent achievements, as cited by the news that night, of the reversal of the FCC decision concerning deregulating media ownership. The two looked ready to celebrate the news concerning the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court's decision to overturn the controversial and mega-money-corporate friendly FCC decision in June 03 (vote 3-2, as most are, where Copps and Adelsteing are consistantly odd men out).
It was an incredible evening to witness, as community came together, along with independent media, to voice, cover, and bring awareness to more and more individuals in this city. The level of appreciation for the two FCC members, to take these public hearings into their own hands, leaving the other 3 hogs back at the DC trough, was immense. For one glimpse I was witness to the ideas discussed so often in small circles, the gathering of concerned individuals taking time and effort to do something, to bring subjects to light which otherwise would be ignored or left unnoticed. I applaud all of you who attended and especially to those who spoke on this magical evening.
Audio clip from introduction to the event. Adelstein & Copps.
_____________
Related articles
Fed Court Overturns FCC Decision
A newly revised $50 bill will be released for consumption on September 28, 2004, the Federal Reserve announced. The 30+ million Americans who live in poverty will never see this bill in their hands. The bill will feature a larger picture of President Grant, will be colored in red in addition to it's original green, and will not be spent by one of the 26% of African Americans who live in poverty. Although the new bill will be tougher to counterfeit, it is doubtful that the 14 million children who exist in poverty in the richest country in the world will attempt to do such. The bill will contain a plastic strip, color-shifting ink, and a watermark. Welfare checks and food stamp cards will still contain watermarks (not just tears) and a plastic strip.
Hope does lie in the future for some of the 18% of the inner city population, & the 8% of the suburbs, as they will have the chance to encounter the new $50 bill while working one of their many retail jobs. With advanced marker technology, the poor will have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the new bill, by striking it with a magic marker. Once the bill has been proven to be an original, the poor will then resume their lives, barely scraping by to provide for their undernourished children and family.
"By getting a chance to see this new bill, the weathy are going to provide the underwealthy with a chance to really do something with themselves, pick themselves up by their bootstraps and really put their lives in order," said U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow. "What the wealthy are doing by giving them this chance should not go unapplauded, and I for one, am very proud of the rich." Snow has been an advocate for the wealthy since his appointment by George W. Bush in January of 2003.
Getting a good look at the income gap between in this country, Snow smiles in sheer pleasure.
This July 4th, culture jammers are launching a blast of symbolic disobedience at America’s corrupt power structure – by swapping the Stars and Stripes for the Corporate America flag. This flag is a symbol of what’s wrong with 21st-century America, the country that has sold its soul to corporate rule.
